Talk:Carter Page

Untitled

Usful source http://heatst.com/politics/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/?mod=sm_tw_post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.132.46 (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A link (unsigned) to an article in Heatstreet, a site created by Louise Mensch and a post by the same Louise Mensch cannot be treated as a reliable source. This woman has a history of "shooting from the hip" and missing. Some of her most favourite quotes have been well off target based either on: an inability to grasp the facts; laziness; or bias. Acorn897 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump advisor

Sandstein has re-added content to the lead saying that Page was a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor. This isn't properly sourced. In fact, that was based on a statement by Trump that was later debunked (no surprise there). Trump included Page on a list of foreign policy advisors in response to outside pressure to list his advisors, but Trump staffers later said that Page was not in fact an advisor and that neither Trump nor the campaign had had any contact with Page. This is detailed in the cited Politico piece, for instance. Re-wording the lead to say Page was "named" as an advisor instead of actually being an advisor is misleading and non-neutral at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is it wrong to say that Page was named as an advisor? It's after all what Donald Trump himself did in an interview here. Other media sources, such as the Politico piece you mention, simply label him a "Trump adviser". That he may not have done any actual advising is detailed in the article as well. And the Trump connection is probably the only thing making the guy notable, basically, so it's something that should be mentioned in the lead, I think.  Sandstein  17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Three problems. First, the Politico source only describes Page as a "Trump advisor" in the byline. The article body does not actually call him a Trump advisor. Second, being named an adviser implies that you've either done some advising, or there's some intention that you will do some advising. That appears to be contradicted by the source. Third, being named by Donald Trump, a reliably established serial fabricator, as an advisor is quite different from being named as an advisor by a politician or staffer who generally does not go around making stuff up of this nature. So, if the notability of this naming by Trump is lead-worthy, then it still must be presented in a neutral and non-misleading manner and be supported by reliable sources. Currently it's not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If we are to put content of this nature into the lead section, then we at least need to say something along the lines that Trump himself named Page and that his campaign staffers later backed off that claim. But, honestly, this strikes me as much ado about nothing (i.e. not lead-worthy) unless/until the Page-Trump connection receives substantial further media attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, what about "named by Donald Trump as an advisor"? This does not imply that it is actually true that Page did any advising, merely that Trump named him, and readers can make up their own minds about the truth of that statement. But, well, the Page-Trump connection is basically all there is to the guy, in terms of media coverage; all the articles etc. about him and his alleged links to Russia are about how this might reflect on the then-candidacy of Trump. We can't omit in the lead the reason why we even have an article about this person.  Sandstein  18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough on notability. But "named by Donald Trump as an advisor" is definitely not enough. If Trump had simply named Page as an advisor, and there had been no rebuttal by his staff, then that would be a different story. But here we have Trump's own staff effectively calling bullshit on their boss, and something to that effect has to be included so as not to mislead readers. I could live with something like "named by Donald Trump as an advisor, though Trump's staffers later denied Page's role." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I might add that it's especially important to get the reliable sources right on this right away, in light of the recent revelation of the Trump-Russia dossier, which suggests that Page was in fact advising Trump, despite the staffers' denials. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at today's edit, and see if it balances the two perspectives that appear from both editors. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Le Prof, which "today's edit"? Anyway, Dr. Fleischman, the lead should be concise, so maybe, "Donald Trump named him as a foreign policy advisor to his presidential campaign, which campaign staffers later denied". You mention recent revelations; any new reliable sources on Page that could be used here?  Sandstein  20:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein, I'm ok with your proposal. As for the sources, there are a number of recent news stories, such as these from CNN and NY Daily News, but I doubt this content, which effectively amounts to unsubstantiated allegations of treason, would satisfy BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware that he appeared in this weird new report as well. I agree that something based only on that is not BLP-compatible.  Sandstein  20:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I started reading about Page after skimming through the dossier and noticing that his name was all over it. The Politico story is a fascinating read, even more so now that the dossier has been published. (It obliquely alludes to the dossier.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit is coming now, please hold. Note, I am also adding Council on Foreign Relations sources, first as URLs, then filling by reFill. Please hold on. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note, the added volume of the lede is adding detail summarising the article that was originally ignored (Merrill Lynch and CFR affiliations), and not regarding the closing controversial sentence. Also, I took very great care to make the text follow closely to whatever source appeared attached to the statement made, adding nothing editorial at all. So, rather than revert, edit selectively in response please; I have also spent a great deal of time starting to get the citations to a common format. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, although I say this in an in-text note: The long included quote in the citation is so all interested editors, today, can see what the Politico article actually says—e.g., it quotes only one journalistic source, an anonymous source regarding Page's lack of content with Trump. The quoted material is asked to remain, until there is agreement how this one Politico article should be represented and summarised (and further quoted material can be temporarily added, in counterpoint to what I found in the article relevant to the 2-3 edited sentences. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be civil here. When one spends an hour on citations, and various edits, it is not cordial and AGF editing to throw the baby out with the bath, and revert the whole thing. (Especially when it was clear I was still working to clean up the bare URL citations. Did you not look at the edit histories, and in-text notes?) Look at the diff, and change what is necessary, and not more, please. Issues, discuss here. (You will find that the longer lead actually summarises the article—CFR and Merrill Lynch, being omitted earlier, and being crucial to understanding the individual.) If the sentences need fixing, by all means, make the prose tighter. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. [Pascal, Lettres, XVI]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues you are corrupting, if you again do a mass revert, Sandstein:

• The citations that were completed and checked.
• The DOB issue was identified and tagged.
• The fact that the new lede summarises the article, as demanded by WP polity and guidelines;
• The fact that quotes are generally considered better in the main body, with the point being summarised in the lede;
• The actual content issues (earlier references to plural sources, when one article, citing one journalistic source was the actual case, etc.)

There are more, and I will ad them if I have to take this to an Admin. In short, I will argue your reversion defies AGF and policy, because (i) the article is not yours, (ii) the article is now better summarised by the lede, (iii) the citations are now in better shape, (iv) the article is now updated to sources within a day of the edit, (v) the prose selected better represents the source (Politico) from which it was drawn, and (vi) this editor has been responsive to your concerns (sentence length), and otherwise made a detailed case, in Talk, in edit summaries, and via in-text notes, while the reverting editor has not. Please, edit selectively, AGF, and show respect. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Leprof's changes are largely helpful, with a couple of exceptions. First, I like Sandstein's version of the lead better as it's more concise and avoids the distracting reference to journalistic investigation. Second, I really don't like the quote in the Politico ref, which seems non-neutral, undue, and unnecessary. In my view quotes should only be used in refs in cases where the sourcing has drawn heavy controversy (not the case here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your participating in the discussion. In response to your input, I will revise out the offending language. But, a lede must summarise the article. The title subject was a Fellow of the CFR of two years, and has been affiliate, through far ranging kinds of participation with the CFR, for a period approaching 20 years. Hence, this is an important career component, and deserves summation in the lede. The same goes for an extended period of work with ML, in three international offices, including one related to the current news stories. In short, I agree that it is not perfect, but I disagree on removing the CFR and Merrill Lynch mentions, for the indicated reasons. (The real problem is with the latter, and the fact that there is a single disparaging source on his employment, the Politico article. This will be rectified.)

With regard to the quotation, I will take another look, but it is true to the source, and it reflects that source's perspective. This is all the more an argument for further sourcing, to see if they all have such a low opinion of the title subject, or if there is counterbalancing perspective that needs to be added. So, hold on will try to improve it in the directions you suggest. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Last sentence of lede

The last sentence of the lede was made to conform closely to the one source appearing. The relevant quoted content of that source now appears in the "quote=" field of the citation, so others can see, and revise the text based on what that article says. Please, if other material in that or another source allows for editing of that last sentence into something more accurate to the published record—I invite the addition of other sources we can all read together, to contribute to this last sentence (i.e., add the new source, and edit the sentence). If I have missed something in the Politico article that is cited, please, add the other relevant quote material to the citation, and then again, bring the last sentence closer to pristine accuracy. That is, I am not averse to the sentence appearing being edited. It simply must closely adhere to the sources. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am against both the last sentence of the lead and the quote, see above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you are not challenging the rest of the lede, just the last sentence. Please tell me what the specific issue is with the current closing sentence—does it not summarise the article, and is it not true to the source (even qualifying that source, as being too limited)? RSVP here, please. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's too wordy and distracting. In general your edits to the article have focused too much on what reporters have written, which reporters have written what, and how they differ. This article is about Page, not about the reporters who have written about Page. The edit by Sandstein was sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I agree with DrFleischman that the lead as it is now is too wordy and confusing. Bad prose. Also, the whole "leaked" dossier is a big WP:BLP issue and i seriously doubt that we can cite it here.  Sandstein  09:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to restore the new version of the lead to something resembling legibility and failed. Per agreement with Dr. Fleischman above, I've restored the previous lead. Minutiae belong in the body if at all. This is supposed to be a summary. Le Prof, please understand that you have failed to obtain consensus for your changes so far.  Sandstein  20:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RT

RT isn't a reliable source, since it's part of Rusia's state propaganda engine. This has been going around WP:RSN for some time. We shouldn't be citing it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not add the RT source, it was there before I arrived—but my perspective aligns with yours. Is it on a "do not use" list at QP? Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What's QP? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

One source

As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline against using one source in a section. It's not a justification for adding additional content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

One adds additional content when different sources provide different perspectives in the same historical situation—so I agree with your second sentence, that one adds sources, then material as necessary, and not the other way around.

On your first point, I disagree to an extent. The "one source | section" tag exists, because there is indeed, in encyclopedic writing, the demand that writers make clear they are presenting a NPOV in their writing, which is less likely if multiple reliable sources are cited. (Have you read the Politico article? Do you believe it to be an unbiased representation of the subject? If it is, then it will not be difficult to find further substantiating sources.) Just as the article in Politico loses credibility if far-reaching conclusions are drawn from a single journalistic source (confirmation being the bedrock on which good journalism is based), so too encyclopedic writing, which is based on the preponderance of published material, loses credibility when only a single source is used, unquestioning. I put Politico and the writer names into the text, because ar present there is a single, and likely biased. The text can therefore be streamlined, if multiple sources all say the same thing. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The 19% of Rosneft that has gone missing..

Would it have been filed out by CP? If so, a section would be appreciated. Wikipietime (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Page is anxious to conclude investigations. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article133488324.html Wikipietime (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

and October 11 2017, takes the 5th.Wikipietime (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

PhD thesis

Page's 2011 PhD thesis http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.701966

Slightly fishy: no listed advisor and no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.209.196 (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

How do we know this is the right Carter Page? As far as we know the subject of this article was never in a Ph.D. program. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Carter William, Page" is the name listed on the cited SOAS web page. I interpret that name to be "Page Carter William", not "Carter Page." Further, as the SOAS page states that this advanced degree was awarded in 2011, it implies that he was around 40 years old at that time, which is not inconceivable, of course. A search for "Page Carter William" turns up a reference at SOAS to the same 2011 dissertation, this time written by "Page, Carter William," who is our guy, I think.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: On the website of his own firm, Global Energy Capital, his bio does not mention a doctorate or SOAS, thickening the plot.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, here's reliable confirmation that Carter did indeed receive a Ph.D. from SOAS. I think we can now safely say that his middle name is William as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

On 9 November 2017, Twitter account owner Nicholas James reported that he visited the campus of SOAS on that day, where he borrowed and read Carter Page's dissertation. He found that Page's dissertation advisor was Shirin Akiner, which confirmed speculation offered by others.

Among the tweets posted by Mr. James on 9 November 2017 are several offering opinions of the quality of Carter Page's dissertation.

References

P.S. Forgot to sign this before saving - Sharl928 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The negative reaction to his dissertation's initial submittal seems completely irrelevant and only included to convey a negative opinion of the subject. I recommend this be removed. It's about as relevant as if he got a C on a paper in high school English and later convinced the teacher to give him a B. Urbansiberia (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Urbansiberia. I've removed that portion. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Page was supposedly brought on to the Trump campaign as a foreign policy subject matter expert. His academic advisors said he didn't even have the basic knowledge required of someone involved in foreign policy work, let alone was he an expert. In addition, when his work was rejected, his first instinct was to claim people were biased against him because of his views on Russia - that certainly seems relevant in light of the Trump/Russia conspiracy. I'm restoring that content.

Billmckern (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that someone else restored it before I did. Good.

Billmckern (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That’s an inaccurate reading of the events, and not well sourced anyway. They DID give him the PhD, after all. "His academic advisors said he didn’t even have basic knowledge..." SOMEBODY may have said that at some point, but they were overrruled. Mean spirited and not relevant. Urbansiberia (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Urbansiberia: It's a completely accurate description of events. His first advisory panel rejected his work, and gave the reasons why. A second panel accepted it. There's nothing untrue there, as indicated by the references.

Billmckern (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

His teaching background

He was quoted as talking about material he prepared for his lectures. If he's a teacher or professor somewhere that should be included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.

Billmckern (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a gossip column or an encyclopedia? BLP Notable?

He said . . . she said; it is reported that . . . people claim that . . . . Is it my imagination or does this article read like an item in a gossip column? Should negative allegations be included in this article supported only by reference to reports of allegations? Is the question of whether or not someone spoke with Russians notable? (PeacePeace (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

Is there specific content you're particularly concerned about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page restrictions

• Carter Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an ongoing discussion at WP:AE#Carter Page regarding whether page restrictions should be lifted on this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction that was applied to this page by User:Coffee in April has been lifted per a request at AE. Though editing here is no longer limited by 1RR, anyone who edits this topic should be aware that discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2 still apply to individuals, in case of trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017

After leaving Merrill Lynch in New York in 2008, Page founded his own investment fund, Global Energy Capital; his partner in that venture is former mid-level Gazprom executive, Sergei Yatsenko.

Should be changed to:

After leaving Merrill Lynch in New York in 2008, Page founded his own investment fund, Global Energy Capital.

Despite the fact the page is referring to the Politico source Sergei Yatsenko is not Carter's Page partner in Global Energy Capital. On official website of Global Energy Capital there is no mentioning of Sergei Yatsenko. Please see http://globalenergycap.com/management/ NewsCheck (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done A whole slew of reliable sources (NY Times, CNN, BI, Intercept, ABC, Newseek, etc. etc.) have described Carter and Yatsenko as partners at GEC in 2008, not just Politico. Whether Yatsenko is currently on GEC's website, 9 years later, is irrelevant. Your request is the equivalent of saying that Page's connection with GEC should be removed because he's not on GEC's website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

response to Dr. Fleischman

All of the articles mentioning Yatsenko and Carter together are taken from 2016 or later. Hence all the mentioned sources (NY Times, CNN, BI, Intercept, ABC, Newseek, etc. etc.) could not be informed about status of business relationship of those two people before 2016. There is no any single source proving their business partnership, neither Carter Page nor Sergei Yatsenko mentioned in their interviews. What I'm trying to say is that sources believe rather than know that those two people are business partners in Global Energy Capital. You can even use website like https://archive.org/web/ or any other similar to check http://globalenergycap.com/ historical changes you will never find any mentioning of Yatsenko there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsCheck (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

response to Dr. Fleischman

On top that you can find in Bloomberg sources that second founder and managing partner of Global Energy Capital was Mr. James Richard https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=58104064 data was accurate in 2016. Non of the so called "reliable sources" even mentioned James Richard as founder, which proves that say have not done proper research before publishing non verified information.

The reason why so many US resources made a mistake suggesting that Yatsenko is business partner of Carter Page in Global Energy Capital is incorrectly translated article of Russian business publisher RBK. http://www.rbc.ru/politics/30/03/2016/56fbf3a49a79470f046775a4 . See part:

"В Москве Пейдж проработал до 2007 года, а вернувшись в Нью-Йорк, основал собственную компанию — Global Energy Capital. В том же году он пытался собрать $1 млрд для покупки активов в Туркмении, но эти планы были сорваны разразившимся мировым финансовым кризисом.

В последние годы Пейдж, по его словам, консультировал иностранных инвесторов в российские активы. Его партнером по некоторым сделкам стал бывший первый заместитель начальника финансово-экономического департамента «Газпрома» Сергей Яценко." Which does not say that Carter and Yatsenko were business partners in Global Energy Capital, but says that Carter founded Global Energy Capital in 2007 and Yatsenko was his partner in some of business affairs which in no way implies Yatsenko was a co-founder of Global Energy Capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsCheck (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"There is no any single source proving their business partnership, neither Carter Page nor Sergei Yatsenko mentioned in their interviews. What I'm trying to say is that sources believe rather than know that those two people are business partners in Global Energy Capital." - I'm afraid your argument here may be somewhat irrelevant. We do not evaluate evidence and/or make judgments (See WP:NOR). Our main purpose here is to use reliable sources to build an encyclopedia. Darknipples (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017

Change  :"and was characterized as "a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did" by a U.S. official.[4]" to "and was characterized as "a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did" by an unnamed U.S. official.[4]".... or "by a U.S. Official [4]" who was unnamed.

 This change inserts the term 'unnamed' to note that the source is not identified.  The use of unidentified sources in significant news articles is resulting in a pyramid of hearsay related articles.  It is important to identify sources that can be checked. CaptBabble (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Marine intelligence officer

Added a tag to the "...including a tour as a Marine intelligence officer..." I see that exact text in the WaPo article that's referenced , but it's very unlikely that someone would be commissioned as a Naval officer to then somehow switch to being a Marine officer, then back to a Naval officer. Maybe after the initial commitment as a Naval officer, but he was out after 5 years, so no time for that. He may have served as a Naval officer with a Marine unit, but he wasn't a Marine officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkonesMickLoud (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Fixed. Added additional details about peacekeeping mission in Morocco, with a reference.

Billmckern (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent re-reverts by Billmckern

Billmckern, please don't edit war--please try to respect the BRD process and avoid re-reverting, especially without any edit summaries and marking your edits as minor. Why do you feel your preferred version is superior? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Billmckern, you continue to disrespect BRD by re-reverting. I appreciate your edit summary, but I'm not following the logic. You seem to be defending Page's noteworthiness, something that is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that there was a FISA warrant on him in 2014; I didn't remove that. The question is whether the chronology of the media coverage of Page is noteworthy. In my view this is a biography of Page, not a timeline of the media coverage about him, so while the warrants are certainly noteworthy, the sequence in which facts were discovered about them shouldn't be included. If you do not work with me to reach a consensus then I will revert you based on a consensus of one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think it's a question of context. The details you remove take away context that helps illuminate the topic. For example, knowing that Page was under FISA surveillance in 2014 in and of itself isn't especially important. Knowing that the initial 2017 news reports said he'd been under FISA scrutiny since 2016, with more recent media accounts indicating that the start date was actually 2014 provides the context necessary for a more complete understanding of the topic.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that a couple of facts out of context are better understood by providing context. If you want to raise the issue on the talk page, that's fine with me.

Billmckern (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What is this context that you think is important? As I said, this is Page's biography, not a chronology of how and when the media learned some of the details of Page's biography. Also, you haven't responded to my first inquiry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I wouldn't use the word "superior". I will say I think my edits build on yours by adding context that's necessary for understanding the totality of the circumstances. Without the context of Page's FISA surveillance timeline, all you have is two disjointed facts that don't show a complete picture.

Billmckern (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same wavelength here. I didn't remove anything about Page's FISA surveillance timeline. And you still haven't explained your first set of re-reverts. Unless your vague comment about "adding necessary context" was your explanation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, at the moment ... I tend to support Billmckern's additions because we don't just document facts, we also document history and developments. You are objecting. What do you suggest instead? Do you have an alternate proposal? If you make a proposal here (so we don't have anymore edit warring), it would help. Please post something here. Then we can seek a consensus version. (BTW, there is no such thing as a "consensus of one", when more than one person is involved, but I suspect you know that.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics. Billmckern wants Page's 2014 FISA warrant to be placed in the section about Trump's participation in the Trump campaign. I disagree, as Trump's campaign didn't even exist in 2014. We have no content on any connection between Page and Trump in 2014. Where do other editors stand on this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I wasn't aware that that was the issue. I got the impression you would have been happy to totally delete the paragraph mentioning the 2014/2016 issue and just note that he's been the subject of a FISA warrant since 2014. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Billmckern has re-reverted me on several issues, but that is not my position on any of them. This is probably my most relevant edit (reverted by Bill with no meaningful explanation). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute

"I disagree, for the reasons stated on the talk page - please participate there in good faith, or I will report you."

@DrFleischman: You'll "report" me? For what? Disagreeing with you? When did you become the sole guardian and editor of this article? By the way, I think the edit note I included with the edit you reverted made clear that I'm willing to discuss this topic.

Report away...

Billmckern (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The only reason you've given here for your constant re-reverting is "it adds context." That's not collaboration--that's stonewalling. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:. I'm not "stonewalling". I think what I'm trying to explain is clear.

You: Page was subject to FISA surveillance in 2014. Page was subject to FISA surveillance in 2016. The end.

Me: In April 2017, it was revealed that Page was subject to FISA surveillance in 2016 while he was part of the Trump campaign. In August 2017, news stories revealed that Page had actually been subject to FISA monitoring beginning in 2014, which is two years earlier than had been reported in April 2017.

That's what I mean by context. Two facts, independent of each other, don't tell the whole story. You have to know all the details, and in the right order, to see the whole story.

I don't think you're wrong, and I don't think my suggested edits are "superior". I do think that when you combine yours and mine, the reader can get a fuller picture.

Billmckern (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How does this benefit Page's biography? In ten years time, will anyone really care whether the media learned about the 2014 warrant before or after it learned about the 2016 warrant? I believe not. Which is why the "context" you are seeking to add does not seem biographically noteworthy to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: And I "believe" the context is noteworthy in terms of understanding the controversy surrounding Page and his role in the Trump campaign. It's noteworthy in terms of understanding not only what happened, but how and why it happened.

Here's another example that may help clarify my point. When Democratic Senator John Walsh of Montana was accused of plagiarism in 2014, the initial stories which began with the New York Times indicated only that Walsh appeared to have plagiarized his senior paper at the Army War College. Later stories indicated that the Times broke the story only because Republican campaign operatives had discovered the plagiarism as part of their opposition research. The Republican campaign staffers then gave their research to the Times, and the Times published it without revealing the source. Months after Walsh left the campaign, the role of the Republican researchers became known.

To me, the role of the Republicans who did the opposition research on Walsh seems very relevant. Other editors disagreed, and wanted to include only the facts about Walsh being accused of plagiarism and leaving the campaign. My argument was that only by including the details about how the plagiarism was discovered could the reader obtain the complete picture - that the New York Times didn't do some kind of superhuman investigative reporting, but merely published without attribution what someone else had discovered and handed to them.

As for whether Page has been under FISA surveillance continuously since 2014, the news sources I've checked seem to indicate that he was first under surveillance in 2014. They don't explicitly states that he has been under surveillance since 2014. I agree that we should see what subsequent stories indicate, and then make edits and updates as needed.

Billmckern (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your story about Walsh bears out my point, in two different ways. First, the reason you wanted that info about Walsh in the article was because of the identity of the source. Here we don't know the identity of the source. Second, I couldn't find the Walsh discussion you're referring to (mind providing a link?), but I don't see the source of the plagiarism scoop in the article so apparently consensus was against you on that one. Of course the consensus here could be different, but perhaps the Walsh decision reflect a general principle, that while we base our articles on reliable sources, we generally don't write about the sources themselves unless/until the sources themselves receive coverage by other sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I did provide a link to the main article. Here's a link to the relevant section of the article. John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Early life and education. No, it doesn't bear you out. The article clearly states that the Times got its information from Republican campaign operatives. I would have gone further to make clear that the Republican Party's wasn't revealed until well after the event, and then not by the Times. But on the main point -- the relevant details that provide the necessary context to understand how Walsh's plagiarism came to light -- this article illustrates what I'm trying to say.

Honestly, I'm done discussing this. It's very apparent that you've got some kind of a fixation on this point with respect to this particular article. I don't know why, but I don't see it being resolved unless you get what you want, so go to it. I'll steer clear of whatever you're working on so that we don't cross paths again.

Billmckern (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Billmckern, sorry for the miscommunication--the link I was hoping for was for whatever discussion you were referring to in which you disagreed with other editors over the Walsh content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I went back through the edit history of John Walsh and there is no sign there was ever any disagreement over whether to include the content you're referring to; in fact, it was added by a different editor and while it was moved around a bit, it was never removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Now you're just pissing me off. Here's a link to one of my suggested edits on the John Walsh page. You can follow it to see how it emerged into the version that now appears on the page - and it emerged exactly as I said. Don't call me a liar again.John Walsh (U.S. politician) edits.

Now, please KNOCK IT OFF. You WIN! You are the emperor dictator king of the Carter Page article! Go celebrate your victory, and then figure out how to steer clear of me like I intend to steer clear of you.

Billmckern (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I'm wondering about something, and this is just for increased understanding. It is not for the article, at least not yet. If we can clarify this and add it, without any OR or SYNTH, it would be an improvement. It basically comes down to what the sources can bear, either the ones we already use, or other sources we should also use. Do you know of any other sources which can shed light on this?

My question is:

Does the public revelation in 2017 (that Page had been the subject of a FISA warrant since 2014) mean that the 2016 warrant wasn't really a "new" warrant, but just another extension on the previous one?

I get the feeling that investigators have not always been open with the public (of course), and they wanted to keep hidden from everyone, especially Page and the whole Trump administration, that Page had been under surveillance for so long. The press was just late to discover the 2014 matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't think the public has an answer to that question yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. We can wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking the 5th

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/10/carter-page-russia-probe-243648

Time for inclusion in all the glorious details.Wikipietime (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The guy who swore up and down he had "nothing to hide" now pleads the Fifth. How interesting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

While I have no interest in defending Carter Page or have any knowledge of his real or reported involvement as a agent of the Kremlin, I might hazard a possible justification regarding his motive for pleading the 5th. While I could harken back to the Scooter-Libby affair, a more recent incident regarding Gen. Michel Flynn and an FBI interview might be more instructive. Having in their possession the NSA intercept transcript (with Flynn unmasked as the “US citizen”), the FBI interrogators proceeded to question him about the substance of a phone conversation he had with Russian Ambassador Kysliak during the presidential transition back in Dec. 2016. While the general’s response was vague and by some measure misleading on the specifics of US sanctions and the incoming administration’s opinion on a continuance of them, the Special Counsel prosecutors subsequently charged him with lying to the FBI investigators based on the transcripts they had. While Flynn has pled guilty to giving false statements to the FBI, under most circumstances this charge would generally be viewed as entrapment. Not too surprising then that Page (or anyone else subject to the Special Counsel’s interviews or subpoena’s ), would be wise to plead the 5th rather than be similarly entrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.0.242 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Restored November 3 edits

I restored factual, accurate, referenced information based on news reports over the last two days. One editor seems to have a particular interest in this article, and reverts anything anyone else contributes - even though it's true and referenced.

I let it go the last time this happened. If these reverts continue, maybe others can review the circumstances and try to resolve the issue without edit warring.

Billmckern (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because information is referenced and you consider it accurate does not mean that the information meets the notability requirements to be included in an encyclopedia, especially a contentious BLP Wikipedia page. You said it yourself... "information based on new reports over the last two days." Given the Wikipedia guidelines WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, WP:NOTADIARY, and WP:TOOMUCH, I support restoring the article back to the reverts made by DrFleischman. Abierma3 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Abierma3: @DrFleischman: Yeah, I'm not letting this go. Respectfully, I think you're deleting important details which are necessary if the reader is to understand the whole story. The opposite of "too much" is "not enough" and what you're doing puts the narrative for this article into the "not enough" category.

If no one else weighs in here in the next day or two, I'll ask for a dispute resolution and see if others want to add their views and help establish a consensus. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it'll take more than just you to convince me. And I don't think I am.

Billmckern (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

To claim that this info does not meet notability requirements is absurd. Please stop. Volunteer Marek  04:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue here isn't about notability/noteworthiness. It's about whether how the content can be presented to demonstration its biographical relevance. Right now, the paragraph is written as as an impeachment of Trump and Sessions. It is therefore non-neutral coatrack material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What? The paragraph is written to accurately summarize Page's testimony. If it's an "impeachment" of Trump and Sessions than that is because the testimony is of that nature. There's no neutrality problem here. Volunteer Marek  06:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Billmckern, you got a problem with consensus-building? Please stop edit warring over the tag and respond. No number of sources is going to address the concern I raised. My concern is about neutrality, not verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request for Comments on House Intelligence Committee Testimony and other sections

There is a content-dispute as to whether the paragraph at Carter Page#Testimony before the House Intelligence Committee is written from a neutral-point-of-view and/or needs to be re-written? Also ,editors are asked to opine about whether the level of included details is optimum or not.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Refactored by Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} at 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC) per WP:WRFC.

• Paragraph:--

Extended content

On November 2, 2017, Page testified to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that he informed Jeff Sessions that he was traveling to Russia to give a speech in July 2016. Sessions was an advisor on national security to the Trump campaign, and after Trump won, he nominated Sessions to serve as United States Attorney General. Page's testimony was contrary to Sessions' testimony during his confirmation hearings in January and February 2017, in which he denied any knowledge of anyone from the Trump campaign interacting with anyone from Russia. On November 3, news reports indicated that in his testimony, Page admitted to having met with Russian government officials during this trip, and his subsequent post-meeting report via email to at least one member of the Trump campaign. Page's testimony contradicted the claims of Trump and his associates that no one from the campaign met with Russian officials or had any dealings with them in the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. On November 6, news accounts including the transcript of Page's testimony indicated that Page admitted that as part of his July 2016 trip to Russia, he met with Arkady Dvorkovich, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister. He also indicated that in addition to sending the email summary of the meeting to more than one official of the Trump campaign, he signed a nondisclosure agreement about the meeting at the request of Sam Clovis, the campaign co-chairman. References

Interactions

Discussions about the RFC poser.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

One contributor, Dr. Fleischman disputes the neutrality of content concerning Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, including whether it's accurate to say that Page's testimony contradicts the claims of Trump campaign and administration officials that no one connected to the campaign had any interaction with anyone in the Russian government. The other, Billmckern, has added content stating that Page's testimony does in fact contradict the Trump campaign and administration officials, as well as references to verify the substance of the content. Does anyone else have suggestions or opinions about how Page's testimony should be described and how to provide references for it? Billmckern (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Objection to RfC as stated. This RfC is not neutrally stated as required by WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. My position has been misrepresented, and thus I am striking a portion of it. The neutral formulation is as follows. Should the last paragraph of the "Trump 2016 presidential campaign" section, currently tagged with {{pov-inline}} and copied below the fold for reference, be removed and/or rewritten? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not an integral part of the the discussion.Tag stands removed.See my comment.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

One editor is not enough to override consensus and just basic reality. Stop edit-warring regarding the unsupported POV tag. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 23:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Please stay constructive, and frame your comment as a !vote with a substantive explanation. Don't edit war over the tag; and don't disrupt the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC) You can have an RfC on the presence of the tag but ... since you've completely failed to substantiate it, it should not be included while the RfC is ongoing. Volunteer Marek  06:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC) That sounds like one of your "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" arguments to me. Do you mean I failed to substantiate it, or I failed to convince you? (And how about we collapse this silly thread so as not to disrupt the RfC?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) No. You failed to substantiate it. What exactly is suppose to be non-neutral here? It's basically almost verbatim from the source and all the info is non-controversial and verifiable. Your problem seems to be that it reflects badly on somebody. Tough noogies. That's not "non-neutral". You need to do more than that. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Where exactly in this comment did I complain that the content reflected poorly on somebody? Please answer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC) " the paragraph is written as as an impeachment of Trump and Sessions. It is therefore non-neutral coatrack material".  Volunteer Marek  07:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Your reading comprehension problem isn't a basis for rejecting my argument, let alone for ramming your edits through. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC) My reading comprehension is fine, but thanks for caring. You asked a question, you got an answer. You were also asked a question. You didn't answer it. Volunteer Marek  18:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Stop posting on my talkpage regarding this issue, Fleischman, particularly with threats regarding taking me to ANI for removing a tag for which you have provided little or no justification. You are being tendentious. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Given that Abierma3's first (and only) edits in the last six months were to this talkpage, and then a wholesale reversion to Fleischman's preferred version, WP:DUCK seems to apply when I say, I'm fairly certain we're dealing with one actual person, not two, with regards to Fleischman and Abierma3. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment (updated)--While the recent expansion of the "Testimony before the House Intelligence Committee" section has made the neutrality issue of the anti-Sessions/anti-Trump WP:COATRACKING less noticeable, the underlying issue still remains. Specifically, these three successive sentences in the 2nd paragraph:

1. "Page's testimony contradicted the claims of Trump and his associates that no one from the campaign met with Russian officials or had any dealings with them in the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
2. "Sessions was an advisor on national security to the Trump campaign, and after Trump won, he nominated Sessions to serve as United States Attorney General."
3. "Page's testimony was contrary to Sessions' testimony during his confirmation hearings in January and February 2017, in which he denied any knowledge of anyone from the Trump campaign interacting with anyone from Russia."

Sentence #2 is unnecessary detail about Jeff Sessions that is out-of-place in a biography of Carter Page. There is an internal link to the Wikipedia page of Jeff Sessions in the preceding paragraph, which readers can refer to if they need further background information on Jeff Sessions, so this sentence should be removed. Sentences #1 and #3 are saying essentially the same thing albeit with slight variation (claims of Trump and campaign associates vs. testimony of Sessions... who was a campaign associate of Trump), however these two sentences can easily and should be condensed into one sentence (Another editor,Dr. Fleischman, has made similar a suggestion and has proposed this alternate sentence). As a whole, these three sentences convey the same information that could be stated in one sentence, and if these unnecessary sentences stand as is then they will continue to convolute the 2nd paragraph into an anti-Sessions/anti-Trump WP:COATRACK that throws off balance and neutrality in the biography of a living person. Abierma3 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nope. Complete non-starter. All that stuff is contextual to WHY he has a Wikipedia article in the first place and covered explicitly by reliable sources. The only real issue is HOW it's covered. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Concur. It's ludicrous to claim that those sentences are "extraneous and do not provide additional notable, biographical information about Carter Page." (Welcome back to Wikipedia after your 6 month "absence", BTW...) Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Non-neutral. The issue isn't with the sourcing, and everything appears to be verifiable. The problem is with emphasis. This appears to be written to highlight the discrepancies between Page's testimony and statements by Sessions and Trump in order to cast doubt on Sessions' and Trump's statements and/or credibility. This would be perfectly appropriate for an article like Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), but it's misplaced in Page's biography, which should focus on Page himself and what is verifiable about him. What was Page's role in the Trump administration and who did he talk to in Russia and in the Trump administration? These are critical questions that we should be answering--but Trump and Sessions are most definitely not reliable sources and their statements about Page should not be included. I also don't understand the relevance of Sessions' role to Page's biography. This is supposed to be all about Page's role, not Sessions'.

Perhaps these problems can be addressed by removing the second sentence about Sessions and collapsing these sentences:

• Page's testimony was contrary to Sessions' testimony during his confirmation hearings in January and February 2017, in which he denied any knowledge of anyone from the Trump campaign interacting with anyone from Russia.

and

• Page's testimony contradicted the claims of Trump and his associates that no one from the campaign met with Russian officials or had any dealings with them in the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

into a single, shorter sentence:

• Elements of Page's testimony contradicted prior claims by Trump, Sessions, and others in the Trump administration.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Patent nonsense on its face. There is nothing non-neutral about anything written in the article at present. Your not liking how it portrays Trump and Sessions doesn't make it non-neutral. It's neutrally-worded and well-sourced. That is the entirety of what matters here. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support rewriting - not knowing much about this topic, and as poorly written as it is, I can't say much about its neutrality. I can speak to how unclear the section is, though. There are a lot of sentences with details the relevance of which is not clearly indicated. It's written in a way which requires more information than is given. There appears to be some sort of reading between the lines required by the reader. Maybe I need another coffee, but essentially it seems like it's trying to say something without really saying it. The section needs to start with the facts, then move on to the analysis of what the testimony contradicted or speculation about what motivated it. Cjhard (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Concur non-neutral, and needs re-write - rewrite because it's a bit incoherently frothing there, all jumbled up and giving wrong dates and such more than just it being non-neutral. I'll suggest line 1 state the event, then second line summarize the highlights and only after that briefly mention it seems at odds with his earlier remarks and Sessions. Note others dismissed it as not a significantly different or important item. Markbassett (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It doesn't "seem at odds", it directly contradicts them. The information is both neutral and well-sourced. If it needs rewritten to be be clearer and more direct, as Cjhard seems to advocate, that's one thing. But the material as presented isn't remotely "non-neutral", so let's not pretend it is. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 23:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone understands your position, that the paragraph is so obviously neutral that any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous, patent nonsense. No need to WP:BLUDGEON; please let the discussion run its course. If your position is so obviously correct then you have nothing to fear. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's laughable and ironic that you, of all people, would accuse ANYONE else of WP:BLUDGEON. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Hallward's Ghost, User:DrFleischman - "seem at odds" maybe, but "contradicts testimony" is leaping to views not supported by the cite "contradicts comments", and I'm simply not seeing whatever of Sessions is in question mentioned or linked to. There's other places that seem to stay vague while exaggerating past what the cites support and to go on & on too long. Such as non-disclosure agreement "about the trip" seems at odds with cite saying "separately" (not about the trip), and a vague "contradicted statements by Trump and his associates" is not supported when cites are about Sessions and not Trump or others. The rest is still going on and on too long beyond what a summary needs. So I suggest chopping about half of the content there -- it is excess WP:OFFTOPIC to a WP:BLP anyway. I still think three lines is enough for this article, and anything else maybe belongs at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Page's testimony doesn't "seem at odds" with Sessions. It directly contradicts Sessions. Sessions stated that he had no knowledge of Page going to Russia, or Page meeting with Russian government officials, or Page sending a follow up report on his trip to the Trump campaign staff. Page says the exact opposite. We can debate which one is telling the truth, but there's no question that their testimony is contradictory.

These facts really matter, because they go to the heart of Page's role in the campaign, the allegations of Russian interference in the US election, and the allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

References: Carter Page Testified That He Told Jeff Sessions About Russia Trip During Campaign.

"And, according to CNN, Page dropped a bombshell — he said that he told current Attorney General Jeff Sessions he was making a trip to Russia during the 2016 presidential election."

"As Raju noted in his report, this is significant because Sessions said during a Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year that he had not recall having any discussion with anyone about Russia during the Trump campaign. Following that hearing, it was revealed that Sessions met with the then-Russian ambassador during the election, leading him to amend his testimony. Sessions later recused himself from the Russia investigation."

Billmckern (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not directed specifically at Bill: Can we please keep extended discussion in the "Extended discussion" subsection below? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Without collapsing the stuff above this RfC seems hopelessly off-track and unlikely to yield anything productive. I'm going to propose we close it and start over. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh stop. The fact that you're not getting the results you like doesn't mean the RFC has been "unproductive." You've provided no proof as to the necessity of having a POV tag on a sentence that is straightforward reporting of actual facts. You forum-shopped at ANI, and it also isn't going as you seem to want it to go. You need to stop now, before your tendentious editing WP:BOOMERANGs on you, as a couple of editors at ANI have already warned it might. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

By "productive" I mean "reaching an outcome either way." Given that no one has !voted, and the RfC is mired in comments that don't speak to the merits, it's hard to argue that the RfC is achieving anything for anyone. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? Shall we just end the RfC? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps DrFleischman could provide less Wikilawyering and more actual discussion of the topic if he truly is serious about the RFC. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand this dispute, and that remains the case after attempting to read the RfC. All editors involved need to stop personalising the dispute on the talk page and keep discussion limited to the issues if you intend to seek outside opinions about whatever the content dispute is. Closing this RfC is necessary. Cjhard (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment-- I have edited the RFC per WP:WRFC.Also, DrFleischman, since you do not seem to have consensus that your insertion of the tag was correct, the tag shall stand removed.It may be re-inserted, subject to the outcome of this RFC.And, Hallward's Ghost, it may be highly prudential to not launch unsubstantiated assertions and snarks at other users.AN and SPI will be two good venues for your needs.Also pinging Calton and Abierma3 to check if they wish to add/change their opinion(s), in light of the re-factoring.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't understand what's going on here. I think some actual edit proposals along side sourced material in a new RfC are in order. It seems highly unconventional to begin an RfC by making note of a specific editor's dispute and shifts focus away from content and toward the nature of a dispute between two editors. That's something I don't feel is worth getting involved in. Please feel free to ping me if there's a specific comment which requires discussion of comments. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Continuing Cite not supporting Sessions line - Billmckern I think you're not looking at the line or the cite, or at how the article is simply not conveying the actual cite content. The cite on the line "contradicted Sessions' testimony during his confirmation hearings" simply does not have that in it. It's a simple WP:V failure. The cite is to CNN "Exclusive: Carter Page testifies he told Sessions about Russia trip". It has no mention of the confirmation hearings, period. It says Page was confusing and contradictory (to himself), but does not say that in relation to Sessions. It mentions some bits from Sessions October testimony and says that "Democrats on the Senate intelligence and judiciary committees are interested in formally asking Sessions to clarify his testimony, according to a Senate aide." Now if it switches to the article line about Trump and associates, the cites there (which are not about Trump and associates) include a Fox news piece about Sessions which mentions Page "contradicts comments" of Sessions. That's not "testimony" or specific about what the comment contradicted is -- but would support "Seems at odds". The section is still moving from frothy ranting with poor support, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

From the cited article: "Sessions' discussion with Page will fuel further scrutiny about what the attorney general knew about connections between the Trump campaign and Russia — and communications about Russia that he did not disclose despite a persistent line of questioning in three separate hearings this year."

@Markbassett: Go ahead, explain how that DOESN'T mean that Sessions failed to disclose contacts with Russia. Give me any plausible alternate explanation for the plain meaning of that text.

Billmckern (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my updated comment under the survey section, the paragraph we are discussing is currently an anti-Sessions/anti-Trump WP:COATRACK that throws off balance/neutrality because it rambles on for three sentences in what should be condensed to one relevant, verifiable sentence, so I'm glad we are discussing the changes that need made.

First, the sentence... "Sessions was an advisor on national security to the Trump campaign, and after Trump won, he nominated Sessions to serve as United States Attorney General" ....should be deleted because it is unnecessary detail about Jeff Sessions (which is out-of-place in a biography of Carter Page). There is an internal link to the Wikipedia page of Jeff Sessions in the preceding paragraph, which readers can refer to if they need further background information on Jeff Sessions.

Secondly, the "contradicted statements by Trump and his associates" sentence can easily be combined with the sentence about Page's testimony contradicting Sessions, although it should not be included at all unless sources are cited. Following up on Markbassett's comment, I also could not find in any of the sources where it actually directly states that Page's testimony contradicted statements by "Trump and his associates."

Lastly, this article currently states: "Page's testimony contradicted Sessions' testimony during his confirmation hearings in January and February 2017..." The issue with this is that the cited source doesn't specify exactly what hearings or when as our article implies, so I don't know where the "confirmation hearings in January and February 2017" information is coming from (not verifiable per the source). I think it would be much more accurate and verifiable per the source to say: "Page's testimony contradicted statements made by Sessions in Congressional hearings." Abierma3 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Abierma3: It's extremely relevant that the individual who was supposedly the Trump campaign's main advisor on national security and foreign policy claims to have no knowledge of what they people who worked for him on the campaign claim to have done -- including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. Sessions wasn't just some senator, or some random presidential appointee. He was the point person for the campaign's foreign policy and national security policy positions and other activities. His statements at his confirmation hearings for attorney general in January and February are clearly contradicted by what Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to, and what Page has testified to. Not including these details doesn't give readers an accurate impression of just how significant Page's actions and testimony are.

Additional references that explicitly mention the falsity of Sessions' confirmation hearing testimony on Russia: "Jeff Sessions's Selective Memory: The attorney general’s sworn testimony before the Senate is at odds with other accounts". "That information appears at odds with Sessions’s testimony during his confirmation hearing in January 2017."

Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose." "At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign. "I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.""

"Sessions' testimony on Russia talks was false. Was it perjury?" "Contrary to what he told Congress at his confirmation hearing, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions did indeed “have communications with the Russians” when he was a top Trump campaign advisor on national security."

"Senate committee calls on former Trump adviser Carter Page in Russia investigation."

"Sessions Denies Lying on Russia, Pleads Hazy Memory ."

Billmckern (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: I am not in disagreement with you. Okay, you have provided the Altantic source that says "That information appears at odds with Sessions’s testimony during his confirmation hearing in January 2017." With this source, we can specify what hearing, so my proposed sentence is now: "Page's testimony contradicted statements made by Sessions in his January 2017 confirmation hearing." You haven't addressed any of the other concerns I brought up. Abierma3 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern:, @Abierma3: -- Just follow the cites -- the cite says "appears at odds", so the article should also say "at odds" to be a better WP:Close paraphrasing and have good WP:V. It's just that simple. No cites that do not support the line, no exaggerating, no WP:SYNTH, avoid WP:Cherrypicking googling to find a particular view, skip WP:OR arguing -- just looking at what major sources like BBC, The Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etcetera say about the Page testimony and paraphrase to present the common views. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hallward's Ghost

Article talk-pages are not the appropriate venue for conduct-disputes.Thankfully,Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallward's Ghost, conduct issues should generally be raised at user talk, but you have asked me to raise my concerns here, so I guess I have no choice. It's odd that your comments here are your first talk page comments anywhere since July 2016. Would you mind sharing what brought you to the dispute? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC) W the F are you even talking about? I edit WP on a fairly regular basis. And while I owe you no explanation, Carter Page was in the news, I took a look at the article, and saw your ludicrous tag. The End. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. You see, I made no assumptions, no snarky WP:DUCK comments, I simply asked you for the information and I appreciate your answer, even if it could have been more civil. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC) The question itself was tendentious in its asking. Pointing out that the "ally" account you cite curiously made its only edit in the last 6 months in support of your voice-in-the-wilderness tagging is not "snarky." It's a straightforward observation of an observable fact. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Yet it was more than pointing out an observable fact. It was explicitly accusing me of sockpuppetry, and on such thin evidence that amounts to a personal attack. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) Trying to be WP:BOLD. Yoshi24517Chat Online 17:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Please back off of the personal attacks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Please back off the use of gratuitous signs. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Is removing the tag truly what you care about? What I care about most is having a productive RfC that isn't derailed by bickering over the tag. How about we strike a deal in which we move the thread about the tag out of the RfC, you strike your sockpuppetry accusations, and I remove the tag? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Is retaining the tag truly what you care about? If you care most about having a productive RfC that isn't derailed by bickering over the tag, how about you just get on with it? --Calton | Talk 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I am proposing exactly that, but the RfC needs to be cleaned up. Hallward's Ghost, will you take me up on my offer? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC) This is mooted by Godric's helpful cleanup of the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dissertation

Why are we including a link to Page's Ph.D. dissertation? I don't understand the encyclopedic benefit. It doesn't verify any content, and it's arguably WP:SOAPBOX material as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I provided the link to Carter Page's dissertation to provide direct evidence that he did, in fact, earn a Ph.D. with dissertation from a presumably* reputable institution of higher education (*as far as I can tell SOAS is reputable, but arguments to the contrary are more appropriately made elsewhere). I have come across a number of people participating in U.S.-based politics and news forums who question whether Page could be capable of possessing a doctorate, based on their negative evaluations of his public comportment and as related in transcripts of his non-public testimony. Wikipedia is a resource intended for people with such questions, and in my opinion a direct link to the thesis description page at the website hosted by the institution that granted his degree is a concise and justifiable addition to the list of references for those interested in further information.

I’ve been trying to understand the “Soapbox” thing; is the argument to the effect that including in the references a high-falutin’ thesis title will make people think that, "hey, he’s got a Ph.D., so he cannot be as clueless and lost as he appears to be on television?" I’ll grant that people who themselves have never been participants in a doctoral degree program sometimes impart more significance to such a degree than is merited. I’ve had to correct people in those aforementioned politics/news forums on this occasionally (I usually draw examples from my own observations made while obtaining a Ph.D., though mine was in Inorganic Chemistry). Having a doctorate in Russian or Central Asian Studies, or Inorganic Chemistry, or whatever, only means that one has demonstrated sufficient acquisition of knowledge and analytical skills in one's chosen field, and has shown sufficient persistence to meet the criteria established by the institution offering the degree. By itself the degree promises nothing regarding one’s competency in other areas (e.g., public speaking), and certainly says nothing about one’s ethics or morality. (Josef Mengele and Albert Schweitzer both had medical degrees, but beyond that their differences were stark, and inclusion of links to their degree-granting institutions or writings would not change the minds of anyone seriously reviewing the totality of their respective lives, and might well facilitate the efforts of those researching their histories.)

If anyone wants to use the existence of Page’s dissertation in various discussions forums, or around the water cooler at work, or even in this Talk section, to support/defend his recent (non-academic) behavior, the logical fallacy in doing so should be pointed out if and when such an argument is made. But for folks just swinging by Wikipedia to get an answer to the question “does this guy really have a Ph.D.?”, inclusion of an actual link to his dissertation title and other basic document information is an appropriate addition, in my opinion. It might also facilitate the work of serious researchers seeking to understand the arc of Carter Page’s life and career between the time he received his Ph.D. and his current entanglement in the Russia thing; facilitation of such research is also an important goal of Wikipedia. Sharl928 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• Add. I'm not seeing the problem here. If reliable sources say he has a Ph.d, then there's nothing wrong with a primary source pointing to it to verify it. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• I am generally in favor of not stacking citations because it adds clutter to the article. I think for a basic fact one secondary source is sufficient citation. I don't have any objection linking to it as an external link. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. Provides no verification nor any other encyclopedic benefit. A link to a dissertation does not prove that the author received a Ph.D. And even if it did, it would be citation overkill since we already cite a perfectly reliable Newsweek source. Plus, the link appears to be messed up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. Confirms nothing except the title of a thesis that MAY have earned him a PhD. Unnecessary since better confirmed already. Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Do we have actual sources that say he has a PhD? This source says he does not, although its reliability is borderline. Volunteer Marek  10:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I think it's pretty well established that Page does have a PhD. Not only has it been reported on in the press, but Page claimed it in the bio he provided as part of his House Intelligence Committee testimony this month, and the members of Congress who questioned him routinely referred to him as "Doctor Page". In addition, Page has included the degree in the bio notes he provided for published articles, including magazines such as Global Policy Journal. I suppose it's possible he's faking, but if he is, common sense says Congressional investigators or enterprising reporters would have figured that out by now, or that the school would have disavowed him.

Billmckern (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The University of London listed Carter Page in this April 2016 article about SOAS alumni who were mentioned in the news recently. That pretty well clinches it, I think. "SOAS in the media Friday 1 April 2016" - Chicago Tribune: Carter Page, a SOAS alumnus interviewed after he was announced as foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump.

@Volunteer Marek: The 2011-2012 annual report of the London Middle East Institute at the University of London's SOAS lists Page's PhD thesis as one that was completed in that academic year (page 13). That's about as legitimate a reference as I can think of. London Middle East Institute, SOAS: Annual Report 2011/2012 and Financial Report 2010/2011.

Looks good. Volunteer Marek  14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What do SOAS/Univ of London sources add? Especially since most do not explicitly say he actually was awarded a doctorate, simply that he was a student and completed his thesis. As Billmckern says, the likelihood of him "getting away with" faking this is almost zero at this point and RS say he has a PhD. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here advocating in favor of putting these links in the Main Article, but rather buttressing the assertion in the Main Article (which was already generally accepted, as far as I can tell) that Page does in fact have a Ph.D. To be pedantic about it: while "100% certainty" can often only be approached asymptotically but never truly attained, the amassed evidence here appears to have brought the level of certainty plenty close enough. In that regard it seems fine to me to have these links accessible here on this back page, in case the occasional persistent skeptic wanders by. I would normally not consider all these pixels worth the effort, but in my observation anything connected to the 2016 U.S. election controversy provokes considerable interest. Sharl928 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Enthusiastic idiot

MastCell, thanks for your recent edits, particularly those updating the article to reflect today's NY Times expose. I'm concerned specifically about this content, however:

In 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and described him as enthusiastic but "an idiot".

which cites this source this source:

According to the court documents filed in 2015, the F.B.I. secretly recorded Mr. Podobnyy and another Russian operative named Igor Sporyshev discussing efforts to recruit Mr. Page, who was then working in New York as a consultant. ... In a transcript of the conversation included in the court documents, Mr. Podobnyy tells his Russian colleague that Mr. Page frequently flies to Moscow and is interested in earning large sums of money. Mr. Page was apparently interested in striking a deal with Gazprom, the Russian state-run oil firm, according to the transcript. Mr. Podobnyy called Mr. Page an “idiot” but said he was enthusiastic.

I think our article is conveying a meaning that isn't expressly conveyed by the source. Our article implies that Page was enthusiastic about being recruited by Russian intelligence. Yes, the source says he was described as enthusiastic, but it doesn't say about what. My read is that he was most likely enthusiastic about striking a deal with Gazprom, which is something quite different. Our article mischaracterizes the source and effectively says Page wanted to be a Russian spy without reliable sourcing. In fact it's a BLP vio. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't agree that this is misleading, and it's certainly not a BLP violation. Hell, it's almost a verbatim quote from the cited reliable source:

• The Times says that Russian intelligence operatives "called Mr. Page an 'idiot' but said he was enthusiastic."
• I wrote that Russian intelligence operatives "described [Page] as enthusiastic but 'an idiot'."

There's basically no daylight between the source and my text, so I feel like I'm being trapped by Rule #5 here. I think you're identifying a distinction without a difference: the proposed Gazprom deal was obviously the "payoff" offered to Page by Russian intelligence, which noted that Page "frequently flies to Moscow and is interested in earning large sums of money. Mr. Page was apparently interested in striking a deal with Gazprom." That makes the context quite clear.

That said, I'm open to different phrasing to address your concern. How would you phrase this material to convey the point (from the source) that Page's response to overtures from Russian intelligence was "enthusiastic"? What about something like: "Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page using a business deal, and described Page's response to the deal as enthusiastic but characterized Page as "an idiot"." Does that get at the distinction you're concerned about? If not, how would you suggest rephrasing? I'm not comfortable going too much further away from the cited source. MastCell ^Talk 00:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to word it better. I guess I wonder how important the "enthusiastic" bit is and would probably just leave it out. I think where we're not connecting is that as I understand it, based on my reading of a few spy novels and TV shows, is that what's called recruitment doesn't necessarily mean a spy saying, "Hey, want to be a spy?" "Sure, I'd love to sell out my country!" Page very well could have been enthusiastic about making lots of money from the Gazprom deal without necessarily being aware that he was being recruited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You have a point, Dr Fleischman. He's described by a Russian intelligence operative as enthusiastic but an idiot straight after the same man says he wants to make lots of money out of deals with eg. Gasprom. So to condense that down, as MastCell has done, to Russian intelligence operatives tried to recruit him, and described him as an enthusiastic idiot - that's shaping, bending even, what was said, in a potentially very misleading way. Boscaswell talk 12:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

House Intelligence Committee testimony

Following up on the stale RfC, I've taken the liberty of being bold and implementing the changes I proposed, which never received a substantive response from anyone. I'm not trying to hide anything, just trying to tighten up the paragraph to make it more readable and focus on what's relevant to Page's biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me - thanks for working on it. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Protect the page

Can we give this page protected status? Can we at least require registered accounts to edit the page? Writing "Fbi considered Page to be an idiot" or "The FBI illegally wiretapped Page and therefor illegally convinced the FISA court to issue warrants" is not supported by actual valid references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontStabberArson (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

Carter Page previously worked with the Clinton Administration transition team in 1992-1993 while serving as a Research Fellow on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Capitol Hill. During his Fellowship, HASC Chairman Les Aspin was selected by President Clinton as the Secretary of Defense in December 1992. From May 1993 – December 1994, Carter went on to serve as the Arms Control Action Officer for Counterproliferation Policy in the Nuclear Affairs and International Negotiations Branch of the Navy Staff in the Pentagon.

Source of above: Monday, November 24, 2008, Presidential Administration Transitions: Public Service during Periods of Change106020 Link: http://bgia.bard.edu/speakerseries/archive/?year=2008 70.177.2.93 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source. That Bard source isn't one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence, but in Carter Page's 2017 Congressional hearing testimony -- Carter Page November 2, 2017 HPSCI Testimony -- He mentions working for Aspin and the House Armed Services Committee when he was a Trident Scholar in the 1992-93 time frame. He doesn't mention the George Bush/Bill Clinton 1992-1993 transition. It seems to me that if it was true, it's the kind of thing he'd have brought up to establish that he's not an overly partisan pro-Trump ideologue.

Billmckern (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We already have that he worked for Aspin and the Armed Services Committee. It's sourced to McClatchy, which is a reliable source. The rest of it requires another reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Embarrassing fact Carter Page was Clinton's surveillance buddy since 1992!

• Carter Page Worked With the Clinton Transition Team in 1992, Was an FBI Mole in 2013, And Then Suddenly Became a Russian Agent in 2016? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.207.40 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• We don't use unreliable sources here, or traffic in conspiracy theories. When multiple RS document this, try again. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Carter Page's Previous Work with the FBI

The article goes directly to Mr. Page's involvement with the Trump campaign, from a broad overview of him. What is not covered is his previous involvement with the FBI in the case of the Russian agent. Victor Podobnyy was one of three Russians charged with espionage as the result of FBI investigations begun in 2013. The Boston Globe provides some background here.

The above article includes this link to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York where the guilty plea of Evgeny Buryakov is announced.

This was also covered in a New York Times article: "Russian Spy's Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump".

This seems like important information for his bio, information that has been widely reported in Reliable Sources, and actually informs our understanding of the more recent controversy. There are conflicting allegations about his role, beyond the FBI interview which is mentioned in all three references above. Some say he was an FBI asset cooperating to make the case, some say he was "on the radar" of the FBI as a possible Russian agent. Both views seem speculative, based on the reliable information we have now, all we can say for sure is that he was involved in the case, and gave the FBI information that was used to convict the Russians.

I realize this is a controversial topic, so I wanted to get the opinion of others before making any changes to the article.

ZeroXero (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Although we don't use that particular Boston Globe source, the content is already covered in the "Foreign policy and links to Russia" section. Do you want to add to it, or you saying you want to include the story to the lead section? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Sperry Real Clear Investigations article

As this article currently reads it amounts to a violation of a biography of a living person. It needs to be fixed soon.Phmoreno (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. That's not a RS.

2. In what sense is there a violation? Get specific...exactly which words? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Without reliable sources and specifics this would seem to be an example of WP:CRYBLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

FBI allegations in lede?

I have removed this from the lede:

The FBI believes Page conspired with the Russian government and perhaps with individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Sources

This is of course covered in the article. It is based on a mention in the FISA warrant application, which also includes many other "beliefs" on the part of the FBI. But he hasn't actually been charged with anything, so I think it is inappropriate for the lede. Particularly since it accuses him of "collusion" - a red-hot topic which has so far not been officially alleged by the special counsel investigation or any other legal source, or specified in this or any other article AFAIK. Open to discussion of course, but I think we are getting beyond the current state of the evidence if we put this in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I support removal, but for a slightly different reason. The fact that Page hasn't been charged is irrelevant to me. These are still hugely noteworthy allegations and fall squarely into WP:PUBLICFIGURE. However if we talk about the allegations, then we also need to talk about the FISA warrant, and if we talk about the FISA warrant, then we need to talk about the Republican memo, the Steele dossier, and the Trump tweets, and we start getting into a whole messy recentism paragraph. My inclination is to leave it all out. I suspect this stuff will get sorted out in due time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hatchet job much?

Sheesh. I don't know much about Carter Page, but I'm not a fan, but I just came across this article and it is over the top. Why don't we just write in bolded all caps CARTER PAGE IS A BLACKGUARD 200 times and be done with it. If Carter Page has been convicted of crimes and stuff, that'd be important stuff to talk about. I'm not seeing any convictions or jail time. I am seeing a whole lot of gossip, allegations, and badmouthing. The article is very clearly designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Carter Page is bad news. This is not supposed to be how we roll. International business and politics is not pattycake. It's a brutal business. So what. It's our job to describe the players dispassionately (and, if they're alive, err on the side of being kind), not lead the reader by the nose to conclusions.

Keep in mind that the person is alive and has a reputation to protect, for chrissakes. Lots of people have enemies, and most people in public life have been called "idiot" or "wacko" by somebody. It's not something we generally report. I'm wondering if a (very understandable and probably justified) anomousity to Mr Page is in play here. Editors need to honestly examine themselves to make sure this

Concrete suggestions? I have none at this time. There's... a lot to unpack here. I note above that a request to change ""and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by a U.S. official" to "and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by an unnamed U.S. official" (emphasis added to show the addition (which is true), not in the original request), was turned down (!), which obviously this is not a route we want to be going down. (The source is Yahoo News (oooh) and the person claiming to have heard this is the author of Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.) Jesus H. Christ. If a bad thing is alleged (by a person with an political ideology to have been said about a living person by an anonymous person, we do not elide the fact the fact that the person is anonymous (if we reported it at all, which we should not). This is WP:BLP 101. We need to fix this. I have stuff on my plate. But I'll be back, and hopefully this can all be done cooperatively. We all want the same thing, right? Herostratus (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The writers involved are Michael Isikoff and David Corn, both seasoned and reputable journalists, both of whose work broke significant news in this matter. The change you cited that was rejected may have been so because it altered a direct quote from Isikoff’s piece. soibangla (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

David Corn writes for The Nation. I like The Nation -- I read it regularly, and subscribed to the print edition for many years. That, however, has nothing to do with anything. The Nation gets the same treatment as National Review: it's an extremely poor source, and writers closely associated with are liable to suspicion of being ideologues and polemicists. That they're ideologues and polemicists that I personally agree with, so what. Herostratus (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Herostratus, you nearly proved Godwin's law there, but I see you went with Mussolini instead of Hitler. Everything in this article should be written neutrally and with reliable sourcing. That doesn't mean some bad content hasn't slipped through unnoticed. If you can provide at least one concrete example, we can address it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is a joke, a humorous observation. It's not intended to be taken seriously and has little relation to actual reality. As to concrete examples, I will presently -- I'm just laying the groundwork here, now. Herostratus (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Correction: I thought you said Blackshirts, but looking again I see you said Blackguard, and I don't know which one you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would you, having corrected your reading of the word, not know what I mean. Herostratus (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing Joe di Genova as an authority?

@Terrorist96: Includes commentary from Joe di Genova, cited in the Washington Examiner, in which di Genova argues that the four FISA warrants the FBI obtained to surveil Page were illegal. Leaving out the question of whether di Genova or the Washington Examiner is a valid source - I'd argue that they'd support anything Trump did - the fact is that di Genova in his capacity as an attorney advised Trump on the Russia-Trump campaign issue to which Page is connected. Given that fact, I don't believe there's any way his commentary can be considered relevant or reliable. T-96 disagres. Anyone else want to offer an opinion? Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. I feel as though your assertion that they'd support anything Trump did to be original research and even if true, on its own that is not sufficient to exclude cited and attributed information. I would agree with you if the assertions were stated in Wiki Voice but that is not the case here. Additionally, @Adoring nanny: has provided passive support for inclusion with this edit that improves my edit to account for WP:WTW.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: My argument is pretty simple. di Genova advised Trump on the Trump-Russia issue and opined that Trump is awesome and did nothing wrong. Therefore di Genova shouldn't be cited as a credible source in support of a position that di Genova previously publicized. At a minimum, I think if di Genova is cited as an authority that the warrants were illegal, then another source ought to be cited indicating that they were legal.

Billmckern (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have such a source?Terrorist96 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: A former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, diGenova publicly pushed a conspiracy theory in January that the FBI and Justice Department officials were attempting to frame Trump with a "false crime" in the Russia investigation. The former US attorney, Joseph diGenova, has accused former FBI director James Comey of being a "dirty cop" and a "political assassin." He also characterized the Russia investigation as part of the FBI's attempt to "frame" Trump with "a false Russian conspiracy that never existed." "Di Genova is known as a fierce defender of Trump who has used frequent guest appearances on Fox News to advance far-out conspiracy theories that the FBI is trying to frame the president."

Please note that these examples are from before di Genova made his comments about the Page FISA warrants being illegal. di Genova already had an opinion on this subject a year and a half ago, and his wife and he advised Trump as attorneys before Trump decided not to hire them.

Billmckern (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it would need to be more recent and not WP:SYNTH. None of those mention "Carter Page" or "warrant", etc.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: Victoria Toensing, Joe diGenova on Carter Page's lawsuit against the DNC.

Toensing and di Genova were saying a year ago that the FISA warrants on Carter Page were illegal. They're wrong, but they keep on saying it.

Respectfully, you've essentially got di Genova as an authoritative legal figure confirming the (incorrect) opinion that di Genova the Trump backer has held all along. That can't be right.

Billmckern (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If it can't be right, then I'm sure we can find some other reliable sources that dispute that claim. But as of right now it's an attributed claim, not stated as fact. So even if it's wrong, it doesn't mean it has to be excluded; we would just need to provide different views, if any.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: See how you like the version I came up with. I pointed out that diGenova has consistently claimed the warrants were obtained illegally, going back to last year. I also included the counterargument, with references.

Billmckern (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Intelligence asset?

In his dealings with the Russians, was Page actually a U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, from 2008 to 2013. Then the FBI got a FISA wiretap on him in 2013 or 2014, evidently because they had concerns he had switched sides. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a section on the Horowitz Report finding and Page's response. Please feel free to review and see if it's acceptable.

Billmckern (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report

Very interesting article:

• Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report

BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Their conclusions don’t account for not telling the Trump team they had a possible Russian spy in their midst, which is SOP from what I understand. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Carter Page as CIA asset

Do you have more RS describing Page's contacts with the FBI? We know that he answered questions when approached by the FBI, thus making him a "confidential human source" (CHS) and an operational contact. That does not make him some special type of informant or person who worked for the FBI. We also know that he was warned by the FBI that Russian intelligence was trying to use him, and yet he ignored them and increased his pro-Russian and anti-American activities. He continued to have contacts with Russian spies and engage in very suspicious activities, thus justifying FBI surveillance activities. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look above you’ll notice a discussion where other editors have already described Page as an actual U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We'll be able to resolve this faster if you'd just respond to the question BullRangifer asked you. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer’s question isn’t relevant. This has nothing to do with Page’s contacts with the FBI. However, if you want RS for Page being a CIA operational contact, you only have to look above to other editors discussing Page as a ‘U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset’. And, something that I should have noticed before my lede edits, there is RS about Page’s CIA connections in the ‘Horowitz Report findings’ section of the article. One is nytimes.com and another is justice.gov. If you don’t mind I’ll re-edit my addition to the lede using those two citations. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Several editors have given you guidance to enable your contributions to be seriously considered, and you appear not to be following up on the policies and modes of interaction they offer. You really need to start paying attention. Nobody is trying to ignore or reject your views out of hand, but if you violate basic policies and guidelines -- especially after explicit guidance to the contrary -- things are not likely to go well for you. The American Politics articles especially require collaboration and careful sourcing and balance of the available references. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Also don't insinuate smears of the Bidens into articles where the context does not concern them. Like this SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you shouldn’t fault me for WP:BOLD. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

BOLD is fine when one first comes to an article and sees the need to improve the article. After that, if any other editors show signs that the edit is unapproved or controversial, BOLD no longer applies. Then caution is recommended. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

An "asset" is a generic term. Carter is a CIA "asset", a CHS (confidential human source). Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian FSB "asset". The term can refer to witting or unwitting. It doesn't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.

It doesn't belong in the lead. If Carter Page were an FBI double agent, that would deserve mention in the lead, but he's neither an agent or double agent. He's always been a suspect who maintained contact with Russian agents.

Let's take a look at this:

[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) Bolding added

Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition to the lead of the article, with an explanatory edit summary. The New York Times source also did not use the words "operational contact", thus failing verification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I take issue with this sentence from the article's last paragraph: "However, he also stated in a Senate hearing that he could not rule out political bias as a potential motivation."

First, there are four citations provided, and they're all bare -- NBC, NPR, The Hill, and CBS.

Second, three of the four citations do not say what the contributor of that sentence says they say. Only the CBS story mentions political bias in this context.

Third, As indicated in the article, Horowitz didn't say he could not rule out political bias. What Horowitz said was that he didn't know whether political bias was a motivation, but that he didn't find any evidence that there was. That's a very precise statement which I don't think is in line with the relevant sentence from the Wikipedia article. I haven't made an edit to that sentence or deleted it because updates to this article are frequently a source of friction. But I wanted to get my observations on record so that if others agree, maybe we can build a consensus on how to proceed.

Billmckern (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

FISA Warrants

The final sentence needs an edit. As noted in https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/30/fbi-says-wiretap-applications-contained-minor-errors/5551226002/ - in 29 reviewed warrants, only 2 material errors were found.

The 4 Carter Page warrants had 17 material errors.

TheRightSizer (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of collusion with Russia

The Mueller investigation did not find evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government. No direct evidence, no indirect evidence, no circumstantial evidence. They had suspicions, and Page had connections (some of them not fully explained to date) with Russians, but no coordination was ever shown. To say (or imply) otherwise, in the biography of a living person, you would need an exceptional source explicitly saying that. None of the current sources in the article do that Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: This is demonstrably false. There was a lot of circumstantial and indirect evidence, as the sources indicate. Saying no "direct" evidence is accurate. Saying "no evidence" is not. In addition to that, as the sources make clear, Page was not completely forthcoming with investigators, which hindered their ability to assess what he had done and how much evidence there was. Those are hardly the actions of an innocent person.

Additional sources which make clear that if there was no "direct" evidence, there was indirect and circumstantial evidence include --

Harding, Luke (February 3, 2018). "Why Carter Page Was Worth Watching". Politico. Arlington, VA. There's plenty of evidence that the former Trump campaign adviser, for all his quirks, was on suspiciously good terms with Russia

Mueller, Robert S. III (March 2019). "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). Justice.gov. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. pp. 98–101. The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page's activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained.

Helderman, Rosalind S. (February 2, 2018). "Memo points to FBI's sustained interest in Carter Page, ex-adviser to Trump". The Washington Post. Washington, DC. Late last year, Page provided vague and at times contradictory answers about the December 2016 trip to Russia under intense questioning from the House Intelligence Committee.

Billmckern (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote, there is certainly evidence that he had connections with Russians, and not all of it is fully explained, which is what these sources support. That gave raise to the suspicions, which led to his investigation. But that is not evidence, direct or otherwise, that he coordinated Trump campaign activities with Russia. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article body's relevant section quotes directly and accurately from the report itself- "The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election".- we should not use a weasel worded phrase to imply otherwise. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: I absolutely agree that there was no direct evidence, But to suggest that there was no evidence is just incorrect. For example, providing vague and contradictory answers are indirect evidence, because if he could give concise and precise answers that exonerated him, he would. So saying "no direct evidence" isn't weasel wording, it's an accurate description of the information that is known.

Billmckern (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, providing vague and contradictory answers is not evidence of any coordination, and the Mueller report explicitly says so, as quoted in the article, that no such coordination was found. For all we know he did not give clear answers to avoid reveling a sexual encounter, or tax evasion or shady business deals or whatever other private affair he wanted to hide. But to claim or imply that providing vague and contradictory answers is indirect evidence of collusion to influence the election requires a source, not a Wikipedia editor's opinion. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And just to clarify a couple of things: Page didn't need to "exonerate" himself - For one, he was not charged with anything, and more importantly, we live in a democracy with rule of law (Admittedly the actions of the FBI in this case make this statement somewhat doubtful), and it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the up to accused to prove their innocence or exonerate themselves. This elementary concept seems to be something many people forget. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this whole thread a straw man? Where, in this article, is Page accused, in Wikipedia's voice, of colluding or coordinating with Russia? -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement 'the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government' implies that indirect or circumstantial evidence was found. And as the above discussion and related edit summaries show, that is exactly the desired implication intended by those who want to keep the word "direct" in the lead (unsupported by any of the sources). Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: @Valjean: I agree that the prosecution has to prove guilt. They can do that with direct, indirect, or circumstantial evidence. But the burden of proof for a trial isn't a universal standard. People can and do make judgments about the likelihood that someone did or didn't do something, is or isn't guilty all the time.

In this situation, there might not have been enough evidence to indict Page, but the fact that he was not forthcoming during interviews with investigators is certainly something they can take into account when assessing the likelihood that he was involved in something illegal. Presumably, if he wasn't guilty, he'd be forthcoming. Failing to be forthcoming is indirect evidence of consciousness of guilt. That may not be enough to indict someone, but it's certainly enough to make a judgment about whether what he did was honest and aboveboard.

I continue to maintain that saying there was no direct evidence that Page coordinated between Russia and the Trump campaign is an accurate description of the information as it is known.

Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You, as an individual, can make whatever judgments about the likelihood that someone did or didn't do something that you like. But to put that in Wikipedia's voice in that person's biography, you need a reliable source explicitly saying so. Your judgement is not enough. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: That's not my judgment alone. It's the description contained in the reliable sources which are cited in the article. I'm sorry that these facts don't align with your argument. But that doesn't turn them into non-facts.

Billmckern (talk)

None of the sources in the use the terminology " the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government" , so yes, it is only your judgement, or interpretation, of what they actually say. Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We need a resolution to this matter, so maybe the wording can be tweaked. It currently says "the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government." The word in question is "direct". I have just removed one of the sources, an AP reprint of an unreliable source, The Washington Times. That leaves the statement in the lead with two sources to back it up. Here's what I have gleaned that's relevant:

• CNN quotes the Mueller report: "However, "the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." Also: "The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page's activities in Russia-as described in his emails with the Campaign-were not fully explained."
• Politico about Mueller report: "But the investigators also said they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Page had been acting as a foreign agent."

"coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government" is not the same as "coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The first is about the campaign's activities and has a shadow of truth to it, in that the campaign gave their blessings to Page's efforts, and Page informed the campaign about his activities. The latter is about Russian efforts, and no evidence of coordination by Page was found in their incomplete investigation.

Cooperation, welcoming, and invitation by Trump and the campaign with the Russian interference was indeed proven, but two words ("conspiracy" and "coordination") were not proven, the last likely because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation, and now we know that Rosenstein actually secretly shut down the investigation completely, long before all questions about Trump's Russian involvement were cleared up. That is a slightly different matter, as here we're concentrating solely on Carter Page.

Here's what we're left with:

The Mueller report was not able to obtain evidence that would fully explain all of Page's activities in Moscow. There was reasonable doubt that Page was acting as a foreign agent, and that question is still open. In the end, the Mueller "investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."

Can we boil that down? We need to include the aspects of doubt, while also including the final, unfinished, status of their investigation of Page. Looking at all the evidence and coming to a conclusion is not the same as making a statement based on clearly incomplete knowledge. To be able to "establish" Page did not coordinate and to not be able to "establish" coordination are two very different things. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and needs to be written conservatively. We can't imply that there was indirect evidence that he '"coordinated with the Russian government " when the sources do not say that (and in fact, explicitly say the opposite, e.g. the CNN source: "the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The simple solution is to remove the word "direct" from the lead as it is not supported by either of the two remaining sources. The more detailed description of what the Mueller report found, including the fact that Page's activities in Moscow were not fully explained, and that he gave inconsistent testimony, should be included in the section about the Mueller report. Trying to reconnect (talk)

@Trying to reconnect: @Valjean: And this is the problem. It's simply not accurate to say there was "no evidence" Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government. It IS accurate to say there's no "direct evidence" that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government.

Page's trips to Russia after notifying Trump campaign leadership that he was going is evidence. The blessing of the Trump campaign leaders for his trip is evidence. Lewandowski's less than truthful initial answers about his knowledge of Page's activities is evidence. Page's reports back to Trump campaign leadership upon his return from Russia are evidence. Page's dissembling about whether he had gone to Russia, who he had seen and talked to, and what they had talked about is evidence. It may not have been direct evidence sufficient to sustain an indictment or produce a guilty verdict in a trial, but that's at least in part because Page's dissembling actively prevented the evidence from being developed. And this is only a partial list of the evidence. So to say there's "no evidence" isn't right.

If the hangup is on the phrase "no direct evidence", fine. Anything that indicates that there was evidence, but not evidence sufficient to produce indictment and conviction would be an accurate characterization. But "no evidence" would be a complete mischaracterization.

Does one of you want to take a try at coming up with a different but still accurate characterization, or do you want me to try?

Billmckern (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again , if you want to say there was indirect or circumstantial evidence of coordination, you need to find reliable source that says that, not you personal analysis of what constitutes such evidence. The accurate characterization is that no evidence was found - that's what the Mueller report says , as quoted in the article.. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)